Skip to content

[codex] Fail OpenCode approve when review publish fails#272

Open
seonghobae wants to merge 11 commits into
mainfrom
codex/fail-approve-publish-without-review
Open

[codex] Fail OpenCode approve when review publish fails#272
seonghobae wants to merge 11 commits into
mainfrom
codex/fail-approve-publish-without-review

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Fail OpenCode APPROVE runs when the approving pull review cannot be published.
  • Remove the rate-limit soft-pass path that left required GitHub approval unsatisfied.
  • Update the regression guard to assert approval publication cannot be skipped as success.

Verification

  • py -3.12 -m pytest tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py tests/test_opencode_review_normalize_output.py
  • PowerShell assertions verified the skipped-approval strings are absent and the fail-closed message remains.

Context

pg-erd-cloud #406 has an OpenCode APPROVE overview but no approving pull review, so branch protection still blocks merge. The required workflow must not hide that state.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 1, 2026 07:05

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR updates the OpenCode review workflow to fail the APPROVE gate when publishing the approving GitHub pull review fails, removing the prior “rate-limit soft-pass” behavior that could leave branch protection requirements unsatisfied.

Changes:

  • Remove the rate-limit detection/soft-pass path for APPROVE pull-review publication failures.
  • Fail the workflow when pull-review publication fails (so the PR cannot appear “approved” without an actual GitHub approval review).
  • Tighten the shell regression gate to assert the “skipped approval” success messaging is absent and the fail-closed message remains.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh Updates regression assertions to ensure approval publication cannot be treated as success and that fail-closed messaging remains.
.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml Removes rate-limit soft-pass logic for APPROVE review publication and fails the job when the pull review cannot be published.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:2903

  • On pull-review publication failure, the script emits ::endgroup:: unconditionally, but emit_review_body_to_action_log only opens a ::group:: for REQUEST_CHANGES and INLINE_COMMENT_PUBLISH_FAILED. For APPROVE failures this can produce an unmatched endgroup in Actions logs. Gate the endgroup emission on the same event types (or move group closing into emit_review_body_to_action_log).
              printf '::error::OpenCode could not publish the pull review for head %s, so the review state was not changed.\n' "$HEAD_SHA"
              echo "::endgroup::"
              exit 1

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head mergeability evidence and changed-file flow before approval, then found merge conflicts on the affected path.

Findings

1. HIGH Merge Conflict Guidance - Resolve the PR branch against the latest base branch

  • Problem: GitHub reports mergeStateStatus DIRTY for this pull request.
  • Root cause: Branch codex/fail-approve-publish-without-review cannot be merged cleanly into main; the changed-file flow below shows which review/runtime path is blocked by the conflict.
  • Fix: Merge or rebase the latest main into codex/fail-approve-publish-without-review, resolve conflict markers in the PR branch, rerun the focused checks, and push the same branch.
  • Repair commands:
gh pr checkout 272 --repo ContextualWisdomLab/.github
git fetch origin main
git merge --no-ff origin/main  # or: git rebase origin/main
git status --short
# resolve files, then git add <resolved-files>
# merge path: git commit
# rebase path: git rebase --continue
git push origin HEAD:codex/fail-approve-publish-without-review
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:codex/fail-approve-publish-without-review
  • Regression test: Keep OpenCode approval gated on mergeability so model-output failures cannot approve a conflicted PR.

Merge Conflict Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
  Conflict --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
  Conflict --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
  Conflict --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading
  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: mergeStateStatus is DIRTY; mergeable is CONFLICTING.
  • Head SHA: a392b9f769f8f77b9ba5eb75d591fea6e0ba9e02
  • Workflow run: 28503462405
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
  Conflict --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
  Conflict --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
  Conflict --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 3c3bf6dc619682f82b284ca760009ac154d55d13
  • Workflow run: 28515588277
  • Workflow attempt: 2
  • Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 3c3bf6dc619682f82b284ca760009ac154d55d13
  • Workflow run: 28515588277
  • Workflow attempt: 2

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

Copilot AI commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request

Resolved the merge conflicts and merged origin/main into this branch in commit 063685c.

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 063685c7c0be54ebb55ec946c34a0739be552c6f
  • Workflow run: 28512066276
  • Workflow attempt: 2

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 063685c7c0be54ebb55ec946c34a0739be552c6f
  • Workflow run: 28512066276
  • Workflow attempt: 2

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@copilot 고칩시다. re-kick을 하든, exponential retry를 하든.. 이렇게 하면 뭐 나더러 어쩌라고..

Copilot AI commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed re...

반영했습니다. 모델 풀 결과가 exhausted일 때 승인 게이트에서 모델 풀을 1회 자동 re-kick 하도록 수정했고, 재시도 결과 로그도 fail-closed 진단이 가능하게 보강했습니다. 반영 커밋: 1224db9

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 1224db9dd75437f42e2b98f38107622a23d7cd31
  • Workflow run: 28513538624
  • Workflow attempt: 2

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 1224db9dd75437f42e2b98f38107622a23d7cd31
  • Workflow run: 28513538624
  • Workflow attempt: 2

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@copilot 모델 부족이면 계속 exponential sleep 해서라도 반드시 성공시키자

Copilot AI commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed re...

반영했습니다. 모델 풀 결과가 exhausted일 때 승인 게이트에서 재시도를 1회로 제한하지 않고, 지수 백오프로 계속 re-kick 하도록 변경했고(초기 15초, 최대 300초), 워크플로 전체 타임아웃 전에 fail-closed로 정리되도록 총 재시도 윈도(4200초)도 추가했습니다. 관련 회귀 가드도 업데이트했습니다. 반영 커밋: 3c3bf6d

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 3c3bf6dc619682f82b284ca760009ac154d55d13
  • Workflow run: 28528202916
  • Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 3c3bf6dc619682f82b284ca760009ac154d55d13
  • Workflow run: 28541870020
  • Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 3c3bf6dc619682f82b284ca760009ac154d55d13
  • Workflow run: 28552741347
  • Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 3c3bf6dc619682f82b284ca760009ac154d55d13
  • Workflow run: 28555964097
  • Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 3c3bf6dc619682f82b284ca760009ac154d55d13
  • Workflow run: 28558954038
  • Workflow attempt: 1

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.

Findings

1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency

  • Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
  • Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
  • Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
  • Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
  • Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.

Summary

  • Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
  • Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
  • Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (.github/workflows/opencode-review.yml, scripts/ci/test_strix_quick_gate.sh, tests/test_opencode_agent_contract.py); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
  • Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
  • Head SHA: 3c3bf6dc619682f82b284ca760009ac154d55d13
  • Workflow run: 28515588277
  • Workflow attempt: 2

No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.

Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-review.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: test_strix_quick_gate.sh"]
  R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
  Evidence --> S3["Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_agent_contract.py"]
  R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Loading

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants